Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SQL: table function support

From: daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL: table function support
Date: 2008-06-12 19:30:25
Message-ID: 20080612193025.GF2004@sonic.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:33:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 05:56:59PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
> >> I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I wonder if we really need
> >> *more* syntax variants for declaring set-returning functions. The
> >> existing patchwork of features is confusing enough as it is...
> 
> > The way we declare set-returning functions ranges from odd to
> > byzantine.  A clear, easy-to-understand syntax (even if it's just
> > sugar over something else) like Pavel's would go a long way toward
> > getting developers actually to use them.
> 
> Apparently, whether the syntax is byzantine or not is in the eye of
> the beholder.  I find the TABLE() syntax to be *less* clear.

Perhaps, but I can see explaining it to my over-busy-non-doc-reading
developers much more easily than the existing choices. Of course then
they will all want to write set returning functions, so I may end up
regretting it. 

-dg

-- 
David Gould       daveg(at)sonic(dot)net      510 536 1443    510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2008-06-12 22:27:02
Subject: Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2008-06-12 19:21:40
Subject: Re: SQL: table function support

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group